Mark Oakley
Mark W. Oakley is an established litigation attorney concentrating on civil litigation, personal injury, construction law, and criminal and traffic defense. He also advises business clients, negotiates and drafts contracts, and handles a variety of litigation matters at all levels of the state and federal court systems. Mr. Oakley is trained and certified in the collaborative practice of law. Mr. Oakley is a graduate of the University of Maryland School of Law (J.D. 1987), and the University of Maryland, College Park (B.A. 1984). He is a member of the Maryland State Bar Association, the District of Columbia Bar, and the Bar Association of Montgomery County. He is admitted to practice before the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Authored the winning brief in the case of 1986 Mercedes v. State of Maryland, a precedent-setting decision limiting the State’s power to forfeit private property.
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Appeals, Drug Crimes, Expungement, Fraud, Gun Crimes, Internet Crimes, Sex Crimes, Theft, Violent Crimes
- DUI & DWI
- Family Law
- Adoption, Child Custody, Child Support, Father's Rights, Guardianship & Conservatorship, Paternity, Prenups & Marital Agreements, Restraining Orders, Same Sex Family Law
- Personal Injury
- Animal & Dog Bites, Brain Injury, Car Accidents, Construction Accidents, Motorcycle Accidents, Premises Liability, Truck Accidents, Wrongful Death
- Construction Law
- Construction Contracts, Construction Defects, Construction Liens, Construction Litigation
- Estate Planning
- Guardianship & Conservatorship Estate Administration, Health Care Directives, Trusts, Wills
- Business Law
- Business Contracts, Business Dissolution, Business Finance, Business Formation, Business Litigation, Franchising, Mergers & Acquisitions, Partnership & Shareholder Disputes
- Free Consultation
-
Credit Cards Accepted
Visa, MasterCard, Discover -
Contingent Fees
I handle personal injury claims on a contingent fee basis, meaning if there is no recovery, you do not owe me a legal fee.
- District of Columbia
- District of Columbia Bar
-
- Maryland
-
- University of Maryland - Baltimore
- J.D. (1987) | Law
- -
-
- University of Maryland - College Park
- B.A. (1984) | English
- -
-
- District of Columbia Bar
- Member
- - Current
-
- Maryland State Bar Association
- Member
- - Current
-
- Bar Association of Montgomery County
- Member
- - Current
-
- Q. Does hicks rule apply only in circuit court or also district court
- A: The Hicks court opinion (from which the "rule" gets its nickname) only applies to the circuit court criminal rule of procedure that contains the 180 day trial deadline limit, and there is no corresponding 180 day deadline for trial in District Court, so no, the rule only applies in Circuit Court cases. The rule itself is not always a hard and fast rule, as their are "good cause" exceptions that allow a trial date to be held beyond 180 days, including Covid restrictions which have had that effect. Also, delays caused or acquiesced in by the defendant has been found to justify extending the deadline. The 180 day time frame is not the end of the speedy trial issue, however. The US Constitution imposes a speedy trial right in all criminal cases, which is measured not by a specific time frame, but by unreasonable delay which is the fault of the government/prosecutor/courts that causes actual prejudice to the defendant (loss of evidence needed for the defense, defense witnesses dying or becoming unavailable, faded memories of the events, extended pre-trial incarceration without a trial, etc.). Speedy trial motions to dismiss are not often granted until more than a year has passed, and the burden is on the defendant to show actual prejudice to their ability to defend the case based on the passage of time, and that they have no role in why the prosecution has been delayed (e.g., by requesting continuances or postponements for a significant part of the delay, failure to appear at prior at prior hearings that caused their cancellation and rescheduling, consent to postponements, requests for other accommodations that caused delay, such as requests for interpreters, third-party subpoenas, etc.).
- Q. If I'm exiting a highway with traffic behind and the lights have stopped before I overtake do I have a shot contesting?
- A: Depends. Haven’t seen the video. If and when I do, I can give you an opinion. Ultimately, however, it will be what the judge thinks the video shows.
- Q. I am being pressured by my employer to receive the Covid19 injection against my will. What is my recourse?
- A: Although the EEOC has not directly answered the question, it appears vaccine mandates by employers are permissible, subject to some obligation to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or disability (under the Americans With Disabilities Act) that precludes their vaccination. If an employee declines to obtain a COVID-19 vaccination due to a disability or religious belief, and the employer is unable to offer a reasonable accommodation, the employer can prohibit the employee from entering the workplace. Employers may be barred from terminating employees based on rights provided by EEO, state, or federal laws, depending on the individual circumstances. In other words, an employee may be entitled to telework or may be able to take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, or the employer’s policies. Employers who have adopted a vaccine mandate can require an employee to show proof of vaccination.
